Talk:Orbital Maneuvering System

Could reverse the redirect

This should be redirected in the opposite direction. There is no reason for caps. Ksnow 09:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Ksnow

How long did it take to prepare it for the next flight

Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program#Costs says "The toxic propellants used for the OMS/RCS thrusters required special handling, during which time no other activities could be performed in areas sharing the same ventilation system. This increased turn-around time" - Rod57 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System → Orbital Maneuvering System – Unnecessary disambiguation, as "Orbital Maneuvering System" is enough and more widely used than "Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System". Requesting to withdraw the nomination because of the unanimous opposition. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, will keep track of the discussion. The page indicates that the system was Space Shuttle specific, so using the present name seems a more accurate encyclopedic descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as the name "Orbital Maneuvering System" is used in relation to other spaceflight systems, like the ESPA and Buran. Also keeps the title in line Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. -- Netoholic @ 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Overly generic proposed title that could potentially exist on any spacecraft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Data mismatch dv/isp/mass

The figures, despite from seemingly reliable sources, don't add up.

Isp of 316 s	ve of 3100 m/s	ve = Isp*g0
dv	300 m/s
Orbiter dry mass	78,000 kg
Orbiter wet mass, or gross take-off weight	100-110,000 kg	depending on source
OMS fuel capacity	21,660 kg
Payload	29,500 kg

This means:

wet mass	129,000 kg	dry mass + payload + fuel
dry mass	59,000 kg	wet mass - payload - fuel
dv	565-750 m/s	dv = Isp * g0 * ln(m0/(m0-fuel)), for m0=129 and 100 tons, respectively

What am I missing?

Andersenman (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Why even have the OMS?

I feel this article should answer the question of why there was even a need to fit a separate OMS instead of using the main engines to perform its functions.--Cancun (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

eg. Main engines had no propellant after the External Tank was jettisoned. - Rod57 (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"Orbital maneuvering system" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Orbital maneuvering system. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#Orbital maneuvering system until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Other things to add

Other things to add - eg ref the OMS workbook :

• propellants could be cross-fed between OMS pods
• OMS propellant could feed the RCS
• OMS pods had separate He tanks for the OMS and RCS systems
• OMS pods had N2 tanks, for post-firing engine purge, (and maybe other things)
• OMS engines could not be used under 70,000 ft (or nozzles might collapse)
• OMS engines could gimbal (and had two redundant sets of gimbaling actuators)
• - Rod57 (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)